A Closet

[fung_derf]

Update from Al Hodges after losing case....

Litigation Update - December 7, 2010

I understand that many are anxious to receive an update directly from the horse’s mouth regarding the litigation and the Federal Court hearing of December 6; this is it. Let me begin by quoting a post of Mona’s from Tramp’s board which I found to be cogent and to the point [the bracketed portions are mine]:

The following is a MOST EXCELLENT post and the last sentence SAYS IT ALL as we move forward!
Protocol:
To the best of my recollection, Al mentioned to those of us standing outside the courtroom:
1. 300 people had been served [and/or being prosecuted] for financial fraud and there are more to follow with arrests.
2. Everyone wants to see proof however.
The reason for the hearing was not about presenting proof but about whether the complaint that was framed and filed has legal standing in this court.
a. One of the points here is that the judge and the other side have to assume that every point in the filing submitted is true.
b. The test this court was constrained to rule on [consider] was that if the plaintiff[s] (Al Hodges) goes to trial and proves everything stated in his complaint, is he entitled to a judgment/verdict?
c. This court says, NO
d. No, because we don't qualify for the takings clause. [Essentially because no prior Ninth Circuit or USSC case has so held.]
e. No, because we don't have property interest in the shares we hold. [Essentially because no prior Ninth Circuit or USSC case has so held.]
That's the current state of the law in the 9th circuit court.
Al argued yesterday that it was in fact a taking and the shareholders did hold shares considered to be property that had value.
The company (CMKM) was structured and had business rulings that rendered the shares of CMKM real and valid.
The shareholders had no other recourse or means of redress against the government and this appeal was the only means of acquiring justice and restitution. [Therefore, making this a perfect Bivens situation.]
As far as the US attorney that was there representing the defendants:
Al said this guy is the head [actually one of the Senior] US attorney in the LA office and he is very competent.
He doesn't know much of anything because his clients are not communicating with him and do not need to at this point.
So, when he stands up there to argue, he is doing so with minimal understanding of his client’s true role and culpability. They are not giving him direction or facts.
If we go along with the idea this was scripted and yielded plausible deniability for the government then it makes sense when AL says this is [should be] over by Christmas...
Yesterday’s hearing lent to logical reasoning that this has reached a conclusion.
Al can of course take this further with an appeal in 30 days which he says he will do if we are not paid.
We will see where it goes by the end of the year.
God willing, all the work behind the scenes is done and payments begin shortly!
Proto

Let me add a few other comments:
• I did have a colloquy with Mr. Staub prior to the hearing in which I confirmed that he had essentially little or no input from his individual clients and/or the SEC; he as well confirmed that he had absolutely no knowledge of any “behind-the-scenes” discussions or other activities.
• When the hearing began, I reviewed briefly for the Court the insistence of many of the original 13 states that the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution as a condition of ratification, how the Fifth Amendment came about and what it means [e.g. it talks about all property – not just real property], the seminal decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the more recent Bivens case; I also explained in some detail why the Broad case raised by defendants could not and was not controlling here; and, although I had to concede that no prior Bivens or ‘Takings’ case of any similarity could be found, I detailed for the Court the reasons why that should not stand in the way of this Court upholding the spirit of the Constitution and all the relevant Supreme Court cases decided there-under.
• The Court explained to all that the essence of the decision rested on the absence of any decided cases of similarity to this one; he did suggest that we might find a sympathetic ear in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• I did take the opportunity to meet and speak with some of the 25 plus shareholders in attendance, after the hearing; most of the ‘quotes’ of my statements that you have seen posted are accurate; e.g. I did say that “.... if I were a betting man, I would bet that we will receive payment by Christmas.”
• I am of the opinion that we are at the last turn in the road. More straight forwardly I do believe, based upon information from many, many sources including my work on securing release of the World Global Settlement funds, that payment is imminent.
• Apparently, dismissal [one way or another] of this litigation was required by the Government as a condition of the release of CMKX payments; we shall soon see if that assessment is correct. Whether it is or not, be assured that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit [and the USSC if necessary] will be timely taken and aggressively pursued, until such time as the payments are made.


Let me also take this opportunity to correct some prior misunderstandings of some shareholders:
• It has been asserted that I am the trustee – I AM NOT.
• It has been asserted that I am pursuing litigation on behalf of Mr. Bonney and/or Mr. Cottrell [and that this is being done at the expense of CMKX] - I AM NOT. I hasten to add that I have written correspondence on their behalf in the belief that it would assist in speeding up the WGS payouts, and in turn the CMKX release.
• It has been suggested that my actions and/or lack of same is delaying receipt of payment by CMKX shareholders – IT IS NOT.
• It has been asserted that the WGS have nothing to do with, or affect CMKX – INCORRECT.
• Some seem to believe that I have instructed various plaintiffs [most of whom have their own sources of information] to go to the boards/pal-talk and release information [either for some specific purpose or to serve some ulterior agenda] – I HAVE NOT.
• Some seem to believe that my purpose here has been to mislead, string-along, etc., and is part of some ‘master-plan’ – NOT TRUE. This litigation was [and still is] meritorious and brought in good faith to assert the rights of shareholders who had been severely robbed and otherwise damaged as the direct result of Government actions which were outside of the bounds of permissible behavior; it was also believed that the filing would precipitate the kind of attention and focus required to bring this matter to conclusion.

Some will ask why I am so confident that we are about be finished with this unnecessarily lengthy travail. The only answer that I can give you at the moment is to ask you to consider how much of my time [most of it] and other resources [substantial sums of $$] have been devoted to the matters associated with CMKX during the past year. Although you can’t know for sure, most have an idea that it has been a very bizarre, complex, convoluted battle against some of the most powerful entities in the world; it’s been that and oh, so much more. At any rate, the reason I mention it at all, is as a basis for you to understand that I now receive almost daily information from FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, and JCS sources, as well as a plethora of other people with whom I have established a rapport and respect, and who have met certain screening criteria. It is information assembled from these sources that persuade me.

Some will next ask if their information is so good and accurate, why were we not we paid months ago “as you indicated we would be.” The detailed answer to that question will of necessity have to wait for another day; however, the short answer is for you to look at our competition and the results of our efforts.

My very best regards to all,
Al Hodges